Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Actually Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district with the PV winner getting the other 2. I would like to see all states go to this method, electors would be more representative of the electorate because large cities couldn't determine all the electors for that State.
That would be the most democratic way to do it.
No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.
For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.
With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.
Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?
That returns us to the very nature of the Electoral College. It's simply not going to go anywhere because the small states will not hear of it. And, for a system that is so cumbersome with so many moving parts and the shifting demogrpahics of America, the opponents of the EC must admit that it's done pretty good in delivering us a winner who also won the PV.
I would favor a mandate that you must win the EV majority and a plurality of the popular vote.
I understand the argument of winning the PV without the EV even being considered but unless you want a system where the flyover states are totally ignored, the best bet would be to stick with what we currently have.
Mark Levin on the right,....and I've seen some on the left too....There is a whole organization called (article 5 convention)? advocating for one nowNo, they're not.Whether there is need for it is certainly a matter of opinion.. However, abolishing it is almost impossible. Either an amendment or a Constitutional Convention would not replace the electoral college with a popular vote because it would be blocked by the smaller less populous states. 15 of the smallest states would clearly be a blocking coalition. All of them would lose power in deciding the presidency if the electoral college were eliminated. So why waste the time promoting a change that is just not going to happen?The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
No nation today is a true democracy. Switzerland probably comes the closest.
Yes, thank you for the civics lesson, I understand all that. I question the need for an electoral college. I also wonder why the selection of electors is not a more democratic process. Surely the method for selecting electors is not specified in the Constitution as well. Perhaps we can know who these people are.
More and more people are talking about another Constitutional Convention. The small states wouldn't lose much power cause they have next to none now.
Regardless it is an exercise in determining fairness.
Actually Maine and Nebraska allocate electors by congressional district with the PV winner getting the other 2. I would like to see all states go to this method, electors would be more representative of the electorate because large cities couldn't determine all the electors for that State.
That would be the most democratic way to do it.
No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.
For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.
With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.
Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?
The number of electors are based on congressional representation, why shouldn't the people of each congressional district select their elector ,with the two electors represented by the States senate seats going to the one who wins the popular vote State wide? How would that change the 1 person 1 vote paradigm?
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
That would be the most democratic way to do it.
No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.
For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.
With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.
Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?
The number of electors are based on congressional representation, why shouldn't the people of each congressional district select their elector ,with the two electors represented by the States senate seats going to the one who wins the popular vote State wide? How would that change the 1 person 1 vote paradigm?
Because the way congressional districts are drawn in this country is downright absurd. If we changed to a congressional district method for the presidency we would have a very large number of elections where one party wins the election but loses the popular vote, right now that happens about once every 100 years. That in my opinion would be a very serious step backwards.
No it would actually be one of the least democratic ways to do it because state legislatures could then simply draw how they want the election outcome to be.
For example you could easily draw up congressional districts that would've made Romney winning the 2012 election despite him winning about 5 million fewer votes. It would essentially give state legislatures complete power over the presidency and make the popular vote of the people effectively worthless.
With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.
Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?
The number of electors are based on congressional representation, why shouldn't the people of each congressional district select their elector ,with the two electors represented by the States senate seats going to the one who wins the popular vote State wide? How would that change the 1 person 1 vote paradigm?
Because the way congressional districts are drawn in this country is downright absurd. If we changed to a congressional district method for the presidency we would have a very large number of elections where one party wins the election but loses the popular vote, right now that happens about once every 100 years. That in my opinion would be a very serious step backwards.
It would only be a step backwards for dems who would have to moderate to sell their ideas in more conservative areas. It would also put a stop to the 6 or 7 swing States determining elections for president and force politicians to campaign in the country as a whole, heaven forbid that should ever happen.
With the all or nothing systems most States use now, many peoples votes are effectively worthless, because a couple of large cities in a State can determine where all of it's electoral votes go.
Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?
The number of electors are based on congressional representation, why shouldn't the people of each congressional district select their elector ,with the two electors represented by the States senate seats going to the one who wins the popular vote State wide? How would that change the 1 person 1 vote paradigm?
Because the way congressional districts are drawn in this country is downright absurd. If we changed to a congressional district method for the presidency we would have a very large number of elections where one party wins the election but loses the popular vote, right now that happens about once every 100 years. That in my opinion would be a very serious step backwards.
It would only be a step backwards for dems who would have to moderate to sell their ideas in more conservative areas. It would also put a stop to the 6 or 7 swing States determining elections for president and force politicians to campaign in the country as a whole, heaven forbid that should ever happen.
So you would be okay with a president getting elected despite winning 5 million fewer votes than his competitor?
Why does it matter if they live in a city? Shouldn't it just be focuses on 1 person 1 vote?
The number of electors are based on congressional representation, why shouldn't the people of each congressional district select their elector ,with the two electors represented by the States senate seats going to the one who wins the popular vote State wide? How would that change the 1 person 1 vote paradigm?
Because the way congressional districts are drawn in this country is downright absurd. If we changed to a congressional district method for the presidency we would have a very large number of elections where one party wins the election but loses the popular vote, right now that happens about once every 100 years. That in my opinion would be a very serious step backwards.
It would only be a step backwards for dems who would have to moderate to sell their ideas in more conservative areas. It would also put a stop to the 6 or 7 swing States determining elections for president and force politicians to campaign in the country as a whole, heaven forbid that should ever happen.
So you would be okay with a president getting elected despite winning 5 million fewer votes than his competitor?
Yep. Why should large metropolitan areas control the State, that's the way it is in most winner take all States, the rural areas are basically disenfranchised. That's not supposed to happen in a representative republic. The way Maine and Nebraska does it provides everyone a voice.
Thus, we remain saddled with a dusty, musty holdover from the dim past.
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Every election year, we go through this. "It's old and doesn't give me what it wants, so it's outdated." Take a civics class and grow up.
You want it because a fucking liberal Santa Claus will win every election. Obama won under the Electoral System. The system works.It's beyond me, other than maybe one side believing that it gives an advantage. In my opinion, it should be by popular vote. Also, it's believed that the higher the population of a state, the more votes that state deserves. It's almost like saying that the citizens in California deserve more say in government than those that live in North Dakota. Equal representation should mean exactly that, no exceptions. In my opinion, the whole political process is screwed up.The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
The number of electors are based on congressional representation, why shouldn't the people of each congressional district select their elector ,with the two electors represented by the States senate seats going to the one who wins the popular vote State wide? How would that change the 1 person 1 vote paradigm?
Because the way congressional districts are drawn in this country is downright absurd. If we changed to a congressional district method for the presidency we would have a very large number of elections where one party wins the election but loses the popular vote, right now that happens about once every 100 years. That in my opinion would be a very serious step backwards.
It would only be a step backwards for dems who would have to moderate to sell their ideas in more conservative areas. It would also put a stop to the 6 or 7 swing States determining elections for president and force politicians to campaign in the country as a whole, heaven forbid that should ever happen.
So you would be okay with a president getting elected despite winning 5 million fewer votes than his competitor?
Yep. Why should large metropolitan areas control the State, that's the way it is in most winner take all States, the rural areas are basically disenfranchised. That's not supposed to happen in a representative republic. The way Maine and Nebraska does it provides everyone a voice.
Because that's where the majority of the population lives in those states (or close to it). It shouldn't matter where the people are geographically, it just matters that each person gets 1 vote.
I'd be all for giving each congressional district it's own vote, as long as stricter guidelines are given for drawing congressional districts and not the partisan ink splotches we have now for districts.
I don't want it, no way. I'm all for popular vote counting. Also, I couldn't care less about a Liberal, Conservative, Moderate, Democrat, Republican, or any other phony misleading unpatriotic label. Obama won because idiots elected him, plain and simple.You want it because a fucking liberal Santa Claus will win every election. Obama won under the Electoral System. The system works.It's beyond me, other than maybe one side believing that it gives an advantage. In my opinion, it should be by popular vote. Also, it's believed that the higher the population of a state, the more votes that state deserves. It's almost like saying that the citizens in California deserve more say in government than those that live in North Dakota. Equal representation should mean exactly that, no exceptions. In my opinion, the whole political process is screwed up.The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Santa Claus ?? Damn ........ and I thought he came in December..... and election day is in November ..... Geeee ... I've been misinformed, obviously.
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Every election year, we go through this. "It's old and doesn't give me what it wants, so it's outdated." Take a civics class and grow up.
it gives none except special interests what they want.
You want it because a fucking liberal Santa Claus will win every election. Obama won under the Electoral System. The system works.It's beyond me, other than maybe one side believing that it gives an advantage. In my opinion, it should be by popular vote. Also, it's believed that the higher the population of a state, the more votes that state deserves. It's almost like saying that the citizens in California deserve more say in government than those that live in North Dakota. Equal representation should mean exactly that, no exceptions. In my opinion, the whole political process is screwed up.The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Well, sure. Do away with the Electoral College and you can just ignore those pesky rubes in flyover country and let the elites in NYC, LA, etc. run the country for the serfs, the way it should be.
Modern psychology can help with problems like 'hearing things'. Jeanne d'Arc would be well taken care of today, not well done.
The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Every election year, we go through this. "It's old and doesn't give me what it wants, so it's outdated." Take a civics class and grow up.
it gives none except special interests what they want.
Well, that's certainly your opinion, especially since mob rule would give YOUR special interest what you want.
You want it because a fucking liberal Santa Claus will win every election. Obama won under the Electoral System. The system works.It's beyond me, other than maybe one side believing that it gives an advantage. In my opinion, it should be by popular vote. Also, it's believed that the higher the population of a state, the more votes that state deserves. It's almost like saying that the citizens in California deserve more say in government than those that live in North Dakota. Equal representation should mean exactly that, no exceptions. In my opinion, the whole political process is screwed up.The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Well, sure. Do away with the Electoral College and you can just ignore those pesky rubes in flyover country and let the elites in NYC, LA, etc. run the country for the serfs, the way it should be.
Those people in flyover country dont get a say NOW.....its not like doing away with the electoral college the way it is now would make a difference.....it needs to be modified not eliminated.
